Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 401 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, full colour, in-depth coverage from the grassroots through to the international game.
Click here for the digital edition or just download the Rugby League World app from Apple Newsstand or Google Play now.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 401
/ View a Gallery of all our previous 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 401
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
* * * * - 1 votes

Super League Restructure Discussion (Many Merged Threads)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
730 replies to this topic

#61 Ponterover

Ponterover
  • Coach
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:10 PM

 So what is the problem within the game?

 

Wherever I read about RL I hear these four main issues:

> lack of P&R means worthless games

> not enough intense games meaning we struggle internationally

> not enough commercial income

> Playoffs are too watered down (8 out of 14 teams)

 

These issues are repeated over and over again.

 

So, lets look at whether one of these proposals would asssist with these issues:

 

1 - P&R brought back, more ruthlesness due to the 'split' - more worthless games - TICK

2 - Fewer teams initially, after the split, teams play others at their level - more intense, close games - TICK

3 - Commercial income - with top teams playing each other, you could argue crowds increase, game becomes more attractive to sponsors and commercial partners. TICK (sort of!)

4 - if after the 2nd phase it is top 4 in a semi final situation then these should be played in front of larger crowds. TICK

 

Ultimately, it depends what you consider as the main issues, but I certainly think there could be a case to say that this is absolutely tackling the main issues that are repeated by the media and many fans over and over again about SL.

 

 

Exactly why I like the idea



#62 nadera78

nadera78
  • Coach
  • 2,904 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:11 PM

 Whilst I agree in general - clubs are not happy with it (they will vote for the current structure if they are), fans are constantly complaining about it (no P&R, playoff structure etc), the media complain about it (same as the fans) and chairmen and players complain about it.

We can't keep ignoring all these voices, even if they are in a tiny minority, they are prominent voices dragging the game down.

No. There is a small number of people who are complaining about these things. RL has forever been plagued by people who love to moan and stamp their feet when they don't get everything their own way. Instead of taking these people on and doing what's best for the game the RFL is bowing to their sniping and doing the game a major disservice in the process.

 

RL's problem is twofold; that we only have the resources for a certain number of teams in an elite, professional competition and that we have to deal with the people mentioned above who refuse to recognise that fact. 


"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."
Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

#63 Ponterover

Ponterover
  • Coach
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:12 PM

Yes, I know. I've heard it said before every other league restructure there has ever been. But here we are again.

 

 

Something needs to be done.

 

It is impossible to argue that the current set up is working.  When something is not working, you try something new.  It might not work, but then again, it just might.

 

I'd have thought that it would be mannah from heaven for the RL press, loads more for you to report on.



#64 nadera78

nadera78
  • Coach
  • 2,904 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:14 PM

Something needs to be done.

 

It is impossible to argue that the current set up is working.  When something is not working, you try something new.  It might not work, but then again, it just might.

 

I'd have thought that it would be mannah from heaven for the RL press, loads more for you to report on.

You're right, something needs to be done. RL fans need to realise that there is no place for a 19th Century sporting landscape in the 21st Century. Creating a 24 team professional competition based around small towns in the north of England is never going to work. But hey, what have we got to lose?


Edited by nadera78, 19 June 2013 - 12:15 PM.

"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."
Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

#65 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,935 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:15 PM

widnes for one. we won the battle with salford for rhys hanbury's new contract. reports were that he was nailed on to go to barton bridge but hey look what happened a new 3 year deal with the vikings. also with the new additions to the board making it 3 multi millionaires backing the club and new investment coming into the club we are in a much stronger position than most of our rivals.

 

Well good luck to the Vikings, but I have to disagree that millionaires = heavy financial backing. It's what they part with that counts and Koukash seems prepared to part with a lot more. Hanbury's a super player so well done, but Dr. Koukash spent transfer fees to land a cracking good young forward against your director who came in to land Danny Tickle a player on the way down.

 

Anyway we can see next season who spends the most and who gets the highest. For now revise my top eight to include Widnes/Salford!!



#66 Amber Avenger

Amber Avenger
  • Coach
  • 5,694 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:17 PM

It does of course depend on what you percieve the advantages to be. At the moment nothing is proven and you could easily put a case forward with all sorts of outlandishly positive advantages, similarly you could put a negative case forward - realistically it would probably be somewhere in between

 

Of course, as is the case with any proposal...!

 

My point is, even if the advantages are numerous, bringing them in so late in the season seems like a hodgepodge intended to please everyone - more supposed revenue for the big clubs, a chances to get into SL for the smaller clubs - and runs the risk of pleasing nobody because it seems like an end of season add-on.

 

Of course it may not, and I guess that's the beauty of debating on a forum, but at the moment it seems like the people running the game have no more clue about where this will lead than the fans. In fact the whole 3 tier system and subsequent debate by the clubs reads like one of those "What would you do if XYZ was introduced into the game" topics.


SQL Honours
Play off mini league winner - 2002. Bronze Medalist - 2003. Big Split Group Winner - 2006. Minor Stupidship - 2005, 2006. Cup Silver Medalist - 2008, 2009
CHAMPION - 2005, 2009, 2010

#67 Ponterover

Ponterover
  • Coach
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:18 PM

You're right, something needs to be done. RL fans need to realise that there is no place for a 19th Century sporting landscape in the 21st Century. Creating a 24 team professional competition based around small towns in the north of England is never going to work. But hey, what have we got to lose?

 

Not sure what you're driving at there.

 

Do you believe that the current structure has helped expansion at the highest level?



#68 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,307 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:22 PM

Yes, I know. I've heard it said before every other league restructure there has ever been. But here we are again.

 Hmm, I'm not so sure about that.

 

There have been a few major changes in recent years:

 

The biggest restructure including the top level was in 1995 - and I would certainly say that there have been massive benefits from that.

 

A couple of years later when playoffs were added, but again, I would say real benefits have been realised.

 

Then we had licensing, which has been a controversial one.

 

It's why I am in favour of a return to 12 teams with 5 playoffs and P&R as that appeared to be a stable and positive time.

 

I don't think it is fair to say that we change things all the time, other than shuffling numbers of teams, the changes haven't been all that radical.



#69 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,307 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:23 PM

No. There is a small number of people who are complaining about these things. RL has forever been plagued by people who love to moan and stamp their feet when they don't get everything their own way. Instead of taking these people on and doing what's best for the game the RFL is bowing to their sniping and doing the game a major disservice in the process.

 

RL's problem is twofold; that we only have the resources for a certain number of teams in an elite, professional competition and that we have to deal with the people mentioned above who refuse to recognise that fact. 

 How do you know the number is small?

 

Unfortnately, even if it is small, it includes club chairmen, Chief Execs, Coaches, Players, Fans, Journalists etc.



#70 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,935 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:24 PM

 I think you over-state the power of these 8 clubs. If they wanted to be totally ruthless you would try and get in a 10 team league with a token payment to the lower teams.

 

It would appear to me that many proposals see some of the lower clubs getting the biggest benefits.

 

We shall see. I see no point in them being ruthless. The proposals give them 30 league games with repeats against their fellow top clubs, the 12 club structure they reportedly favoured, no early rounds for the play offs which were poorly attended and a 4 club buffer against relegation. Ruthlessness may come when they share all the SKY money amongst SL.

 

What biggest benefits will those below the eight get?



#71 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,307 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:27 PM

We shall see. I see no point in them being ruthless. The proposals give them 30 league games with repeats against their fellow top clubs, the 12 club structure they reportedly favoured, no early rounds for the play offs which were poorly attended and a 4 club buffer against relegation. Ruthlessness may come when they share all the SKY money amongst SL.

 

What biggest benefits will those below the eight get?

 Well all the 10 teams outside of the current SL have the opportunity to earn promotion. They will also get some central funding under the proposals.



#72 nadera78

nadera78
  • Coach
  • 2,904 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:32 PM

Not sure what you're driving at there.

 

Do you believe that the current structure has helped expansion at the highest level?

 

What am I driving at? Simple. We have the resources - players, fans , investors, corporate backing, media and broadcast interest - for 12 teams. That's if we want a genuinely elite competition where results are in doubt and standards are pushed forward. Over time that would give us the opportunity to grow our resources and consequently expand the top tier as a result.

 

Or we can spread our resources across 24 teams, for the most part semi-professional, and then watch on as our competition becomes nothing more than a development league for the NRL and rugby union.

 

btw, the failures of expansion are nothing to do with the current structure. Crusaders failed because they didn't have the right set up and the RFL was desperate for a team in Wales to push forward their national team. London is a basketcase because the owner sees it as a hobby and won't listen to advice from anyone else. Catalans have been a brilliant addition. It's a complete red herring.


"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."
Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

#73 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,023 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:39 PM

That's a good point, hadn't considered the actual timing, but yes the Wembley trip may benefit from being in June? 

I said July. <_<   :sorry:


2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#74 Ponterover

Ponterover
  • Coach
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:50 PM

What am I driving at? Simple. We have the resources - players, fans , investors, corporate backing, media and broadcast interest - for 12 teams. That's if we want a genuinely elite competition where results are in doubt and standards are pushed forward. Over time that would give us the opportunity to grow our resources and consequently expand the top tier as a result.

 

Or we can spread our resources across 24 teams, for the most part semi-professional, and then watch on as our competition becomes nothing more than a development league for the NRL and rugby union.

 

btw, the failures of expansion are nothing to do with the current structure. Crusaders failed because they didn't have the right set up and the RFL was desperate for a team in Wales to push forward their national team. London is a basketcase because the owner sees it as a hobby and won't listen to advice from anyone else. Catalans have been a brilliant addition. It's a complete red herring.

 

1. Isn't that what the proposal delivers?  There are 12 teams at the start of the competition, OK results may not be in doubt when the bottom 4 play, but the top 8 games will be fantastic. After the split, aspiring lower league clubs (Including Expansion Clubs) will get the opportunity to knock off the SL also rans = exciting games.  The top 8 play off could well be brutally brilliant too.

 

2. Resources are not being spread across 24 clubs, the top 12 each year will get the bulk of the Sky money.  The only extra resource the other 12 get is a divvy up of the Sky money from the two teams removed after SL 2015.  This is a drop in the ocean for the big clubs.

 

3. One can argue that the financial environment facing Crusaders, Paris and Gateshead was/is far too challenging for a startup operation (I know PSG and Gateshead were prior to licensing, but the arguement still stands, they were startups parachuted to the top table). London are a basket case, I agree.  Catalan are a red herring, they are not an expansion club.  Surely an environment where aspiring new clubs can build a following prior to their inclusion in the top league has to be better. Under the proposals, we could well see North Wales in the top league in 3-4 years time, who would seek to deny that by continuing with the current arrangements?


Edited by Ponterover, 19 June 2013 - 01:02 PM.


#75 nadera78

nadera78
  • Coach
  • 2,904 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 01:08 PM

1. Isn't that what the proposal delivers?  There are 12 teams at the start of the competition, OK results may not be in doubt when the bottom 4 play, but the top 8 games will be fantastic. After the split, aspiring lower league clubs (Including Expansion Clubs) will get the opportunity to knock off the SL also rans = exciting games.  The top 8 play off could well be brutally brilliant too.

 

2. Resources are not being spread across 24 clubs, the top 12 each year will get the bulk of the Sky money.  The only extra resource the other 12 get is a divvy up of the Sky money from the two teams removed after SL 2015.  This is a drop in the ocean for the big clubs.

 

3. One can argue that the financial environment facing Crusaders, Paris and Gateshead was/is far too challenging for a startup operation (I know PSG and Gateshead were prior to licensing, but the arguement still stands, they were startups parachuted to the top table). London are a basket case, I agree.  Catalan are a red herring, they are not an expansion club.  Surely an environment where aspiring new clubs can build a following prior to their inclusion in the top league has to be better. Under the proposals, we could well see North Wales in the top league in 3-4 years time, who would seek to deny that by continuing with the current arrangements?

Disagree with all of that, but it's been done to death on here.

 

I guess we just wait and see which way the wind blows.


"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."
Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

#76 amh

amh
  • Moderator
  • 11,083 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 01:09 PM

92% of the players that voted have gone for Model C 

 

Glad they haven't opted for A (prev 3)

 

http://www.leaguethi...s/2013/06/13/18


Whilst I do not suffer fools gladly, I will always gladly make fools suffer

A man is getting along on the road of wisdom when he realises that his opinion is just an opinion


#77 Ponterover

Ponterover
  • Coach
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 01:12 PM

Disagree with all of that, but it's been done to death on here.

 

I guess we just wait and see which way the wind blows.

 

That's fair enough.  It'll go one of two ways.  Either it's a bright new dawn for RL or it'll go further round the U bend.

 

I personally think it'll be the former, but as with anything, there's only one way to find out.



#78 Ponterover

Ponterover
  • Coach
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 01:15 PM

92% of the players that voted have gone for Model C 

 

Glad they haven't opted for A (prev 3)

 

http://www.leaguethi...s/2013/06/13/18

 

That's a pretty clear message from the players.

 

Their preference is fine, as long as the 2nd tier is allowed to get closer to being fully pro (assuming they can find funding).  Otherwise we will be back to the same old problems that licensing tried to cure.

 

 

Edit:  Is this just the full time players?  Has anyone asked the part-timers?


Edited by Ponterover, 19 June 2013 - 01:18 PM.


#79 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,307 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:00 PM

92% of the players that voted have gone for Model C 

 

Glad they haven't opted for A (prev 3)

 

http://www.leaguethi...s/2013/06/13/18

 I find it disappointing when things like this are quoted in an effort to discredit the proposal for the split:

 

Just 4% of players supported the split option, that has been .... recently rejected as an option by the Scottish FA.

 

Whilst this is technically correct, 10 of the 12 clubs voted YES to this, but in Scotland there is a requirement for an 11-1 majority.



#80 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,959 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:09 PM

 I find it disappointing when things like this are quoted in an effort to discredit the proposal for the split:

 

Just 4% of players supported the split option, that has been .... recently rejected as an option by the Scottish FA.

 

Whilst this is technically correct, 10 of the 12 clubs voted YES to this, but in Scotland there is a requirement for an 11-1 majority.

 

And, from memory, the Scottish lot were keen to vote for it in defiance of poll after poll from Scottish football supporters against it.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users